safety needs to catch up to technology and put people before cars

Although the authors' concern applies to pedestrians in particular, much applies to cyclist safety as well.

Views: 463

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks for posting that, it reminds me of this little video via Mark Wagenbuur ( "Bicycle Dutch" ), in that both recognise "that all people make mistakes", and that any successful designs must take this into account and not rely on assumptions about behaviour or that threats and fines are a substitute for safe infrastructure.

One of the founding principles is: It's not about the technology it's about how you use it. 

Australians have a deserved reputation as early adopters of new tech,  proof is in the number of on board cameras for cars, bikes and cyclists, and their value is undisputed but they are reactive, meaning after the event and not proactive in stopping an incident before.

and for the rant....

What would be nice is if "we" everyone on this site, our friends, colleagues and family publically proclaim out aloud. 

We are going to endorse and support proactive measures on road safety like this

Tell our pollies what we expect, that no longer is reactive approaches acceptable. 

Tell our friends and some of those Facebook hate sites, we will use the tools available to us to hold PEOPLE accountable for their actions.

Maybe then, sooner rather than later will public support swing to an active role, just like the drink driving campaigns turned public opinion from " well done drink driving and making it home"  to " shame - you risked the lives of people for your own selfish objectives"

Call out the message, share the word and live the approach cause its a long road and we can't afford to surrender

Now off to save some endangered slug worms of whatchamacallit island

The drink driving campaigns were the result of years of lobbying led by the medical establishment. Community acceptance came after the laws were introduced; they were bitterly fought by many groups, RBT especially. It's a good example of how lawmaking can lead, rather than follow, social norms.

Unfortunately, there is almost no-one outside of the cycling community who is seriously lobbying for improving road safety for vulnerable road users. The medical establishment are fixated on helmets, but have almost nothing to say on the need to encourage active transportation; mostly they focus on car technologies that protect the occupants.

'Towards zero' is a hollow slogan. Outside of fringe groups (and, sorry to say, cyclists are perceived as a fringe group), there is no practical support for actually delivering any real improvements in road safety in Australia. The 'rights of the motorist' trump everything.

I recall statistics on hospital emergency by time of day and day.  The graph shot thru the roof late at night and even higher Friday and Saturday night

Yeah, "towards zero", not "vision zero", weasel words obviously put there by the minister wanting some wiggle room if trends didn't look good.

Some positives around: Doctors in Newcastle are lobbying for a network of cycle routes, and they did a paper on crashes in the area, trying to identify the main problems and causes for cyclist crashes. It was poor road design, not drivers of cars, they found, tho cars were significant. They are pushing for crashes to be notifiable health events, so that better records of the location and causes can be kept and acted on.

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2373714/hunter-bike-accident-stud...
Paper here http://www.phrp.com.au/issues/july-2015-volume-25-issue-3/making-cy...

I wonder if "

Moving vehicle – failed to see

14 " equates to SMIDSY events.

Environmental if occluded I suppose.

The original article in The Conversation
http://theconversation.com/pedestrian-safety-needs-to-catch-up-to-t...
Has some interesting comments and a reply by one of the authors.

A sure way to lower the pedestrian toll is to reduce the numbers of cars on the roads. Like the sugar tax, a tax on car use wouldn't be popular, but might have significant health benefits. Maybe just increase the parking costs and eliminate a certain percentage of spots every year (efficiency dividend in Neo con speak). Not even Clover would do that though.

Some stats going around on on Twitter yesterday about car use in London - 50 % of trips less than 3 km! Bike trips faster in most cases! And some other good ones.

Also a good anti car article in Citylab - The Absurd Primacy of the Automobile in American Life. Huge costs not paid for by motorists.

There are many ways to address safety.  But while we continue to design our cities and more importantly our NEW developments around cars nothing is going to change.

We are continuing have urban design centred around cars as the primary means of transport.  The road layout, its speeds and the zoning all contribute to ruling out cycling as a practical means of transport for all but a small minority.

Compare that with inner urban areas which had streets and zoning designed well before the motor vehicle.

In short we are going backwards not forwards as a country regarding cycling.  Unless you live in our inner cities.

The elephant they failed to see is that reducing the amount of driving would be the best way to improve road safety.

And Westconnex just keeps on giving! 

But wait, there's more. Follow the money!

RSS

© 2019   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service